Leeds International Classical Studies Discussion Paper 2 (2005)

ISSN 1477-3643 (http://www.leeds.ac.uk/classics/lics/)

Malcolm Heath

Notes on the Anonymus Seguerianus

MALCOLM HEATH (UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS)
ABSTRACT: This paper is an expanded version of a review of M. Patillons
edition of the rhetorical treatise known as the Anonymus Seguerianus. An
introductory section provides background, and highlights Patillons contribution
in making accessible the extracts from the unabridged version preserved in an
anonymous commentary on [Hermogenes] On Invention (1). I then consider a
number of text-critical problems (2); discuss difficulties in identifying, and
assigning material to, the compilers sources (3); propose a solution to the
problem of combining the abridged version and the extracts from the unabridged
version preserved in the anonymous commentary into an integrated structure
(4); and argue that the indirect tradition preserves more evidence for the
unabridged version than Patillon recognises (5).

Michel Patillons new edition1 of the rhetorical treatise known as the

Anonymus Seguerianus should become the default choice for serious study, both
for the quality of the text and translation, and for the extensive and
characteristically informative introduction and notes. That recommendation will
come as no surprise to anyone familiar with the impressive series of editions of
rhetorical texts that Patillon has produced in recent years.2 Among these, the
edition of Theon was especially notable for making accessible the Armenian
version of the chapters lost in the Greek paradosis.3 In this case, too, Patillon
gives us, not just a good text, but more text than previous editors. To understand
this, some background may be needed.

1. The Anonymus Seguerianus

The Anonymus Seguerianus (henceforth AS) was discovered by Sguier de St
Brisson in 1838, and first published in 1840. It is preserved in only a single
manuscript (Par. gr. 1874). Its authorship is unknown. Graeven argued in his
1

M. Patillon (ed.), Anonyme de Sguier. Art du discours politique (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2005).
This discussion paper is a much expanded version of my review, to appear in Bryn Mawr Classical
Review 2005-09-16. It is a preliminary and provisional version of a paper of which I hope to
publish a more permanent revision in due course. LICS Discussion Papers provide a facility by
which papers in a less than finished state can be made public in order to elicit feedback and
discussion. Discussion Papers may be withdrawn or revised without notice, and do not have the
stability guaranteed for contributions published in the regular volumes of LICS.
2
Theon (1997, with G. Bolognesi); [Apsines] (2001); Longinus and Rufus (2001, with L. Brisson);
[Aristides] (2002). I have reviewed the last three in CR 52 (2002), 11-13 (with further reflections
in Heath 2002a), CR 52 (2002) 276-8, and Gnomon 77 (2005) 106-9 respectively. An edition of
[Hermogenes] On Invention is promised.
3
But it would have been helpful if the Greek version of the chapter on ntrrhsij preserved in the
commentaries on [Hermogenes] Meth. by John Diaconus (see Rabe 1908) and Gregory of Corinth
(RG 7.1206.12-28 Walz) had been given in full: see Patillon and Bolognesi cxi-cxii, cxx and 171
n.591.

MALCOLM HEATH, NOTES ON THE ANONYMUS SEGUERIANUS

ground-breaking edition4 that the author was called Cornutus, a suggestion that is
still able to trap the occasional unwary non-specialist into a confusion with the
first-century Stoic, who is known to have written on rhetoric.5 But that cannot be
right: AS is essentially a compilation of material drawn from named authorities
(most extensively, Neocles, Alexander son of Numenius, and Harpocration), at
least some of whom date to the second century AD. Graeven, of course, was not
guilty of an elementary chronological blunder. His idea was rather that there must
have been a third-century rhetorician of that name. The argument, which crucially
depends on the fact that the definition of klon at AS 242 (klon m
n on sti
dianoaj mroj partzon prj teron klon parakemenon, with the
following example) is identical to that attributed to Cornutus in a fragment of the
fifth-century sophist Lachares (RG 7.931.1-14 Walz), is not compelling. There is a
simpler explanation for the parallel. Unwary non-specialists are right to think of
the first-century Stoic; but he was the author, not of the whole text, but of the
short definition of klon that an anonymous third-century rhetorician inherited
from one of his proximate sources.6
Dilts and Kennedy, in the introduction to their edition of AS,7 report that
Graevens theory that Anonymous [sic] Seguerianus is a shortened version of a
work on rhetoric by a rhetorician of the third century named Cornutus... has been
discredited (xi). That, however, is misleading. Though the attribution to a
hypothetical third-century Cornutus has not convinced subsequent researchers, it
remains a virtual certainty that the text which Sguier discovered is a shortened
version of a work on rhetoric by a rhetorician of the third century. We can be
confident that AS in the form that has been preserved is an abridgement because
parts of a more extensive version have been preserved in the indirect tradition.
How widely traces of the unabridged version are dispersed is, as we shall see, still
a matter for debate. But the minimum is beyond dispute: an anonymous
commentary on [Hermogenes] On Invention contains passages which cite the
same range of authorities as AS in the same manner; these passages partially
overlap with AS, but also present material missing from the version preserved in
the direct tradition.8
Previous editors of AS have not though it their business to edit the material
from the anonymous commentary (some do not even advertise its existence with
any energy), and getting at it has hitherto posed a formidable challenge. Parts of
the commentary were printed in volume 7 of Walzs Rhetores Graeci (RG 7.697860); the parts which Walz omitted were ones which had already been printed in
RG 5 as parts of another, later commentary (RG 5.363-436, attributed to
4

Graeven 1891.
E.g. Boys-Stone 2003, 210 n.31.
6
I assess Graevens arguments briefly in Heath 2003a, 152.
7
Dilts and Kennedy 1997. Patillon refers to another recent edition, which I have not seen: Vottero
2004, including text, Italian translation, and commentary.
8
Kennedy 2003, 300: One controversy that I hope may be regarded as settled relates to the
Anonymous Seguerianus... I hope to have demonstrated (Dilts and Kennedy 1997, xi-xv) that
Anonymous Seguerianus is not an epitome of a single text but is an abstract of the views of certain
second-century authorities. The latter has never been in doubt; the question is whether AS is an
epitome of such an abstract, and Kennedy has provided no argument to the contrary.
5

MALCOLM HEATH, NOTES ON THE ANONYMUS SEGUERIANUS

Planudes). However, the text in RG 5 was that of the derivative commentary; the
superior text of the RG 7 commentary had to be constructed out of the variants
reported in Walzs (not always unambiguous) apparatus. RG is not a user-friendly
work at the best of times, and only the most obsessive devotees of fragmentary
rhetoricians would contemplate the task of reassembling the lost sections of AS
from Walzs diaspora. It is therefore cause for rejoicing that we have the relevant
parts of the anonymous commentary (henceforth AC), properly edited from
superior manuscript evidence, in Patillons accessible Bud. Though I shall argue
in 4 that the relationship between AS and the material preserved in AC is not as
inscrutable as P. supposes (xxiii), the decision to place this material separately in
an Annexe rather than contaminating the two versions is methodologically correct.
In what follows I cite AC using Patillons section numbers.9
Since I am obsessive enough to have made some tentative investigations into
the material which Walz scattered between RG 5 and RG 7, I am particularly
aware of how much of a benefit Patillon has conferred on us. I should, perhaps, be
more relieved than embarrassed to discover how unequal my obsessive tendencies
were to the challenge that Walz had posed: the list of references I compiled,10
happily now completely superseded, is glaringly incomplete. But obsessions are
hard things to shake off, and Patillons work has driven me back to the question
whether there may be further, unidentified material from the unabridged AS in the
commentary and other sources. It could well be argued that an edition is not the
place to explore such inevitably speculative and elusive territory; and the
sometimes unconvincing arguments of Graevens introduction (he, too, wisely
refrained from contaminating his text) are a discouraging precedent. If I have a
complaint, therefore, it is only that Patillon has done less than he could to alert
readers to the possibilities. I shall return to this point in 5. But first I should
comment on what Patillon has done, focusing on his text (2), and on the analysis
of the sources of AS in his introduction (3).

2. Textual problems
AS 1: politikj toi dikanikj lgoj ej tssara mrh
diairetai t prokemena: crzomen gr n at prooimwn m
n
prj t prosecestrouj poisai toj kroatj, dihgsewj d
prj
t didxai t prgma, tn d
pstewn prj t kataskeusai
naskeusai t prokemenon: toj d
pilgouj pgomen prj t
pirrsai tn koonta ej tn p
r mn yfon.
The opening section illustrates both the conservative and the interventionist
tendencies in Patillons editorial practice. He retains the words toi dikanikj
which other editors have plausibly suspected as an interpolation; he is similarly
protective of AS 18.8 toi to ntidkou. In AS 1 suspicion, at least, is
encouraged by the omission of these words in John of Sardis (PS 358.6 Rabe =
9

Patillon indicates that his forthcoming edition of [Hermogenes] On Invention will include the
anonymous commentary in its entirety. The sections included with AS are AC 1-2, 78-87, 170-198,
225-227.
10
Heath 2004, 268 n.29.

MALCOLM HEATH, NOTES ON THE ANONYMUS SEGUERIANUS

RG 6.511.5 Walz). Patillon mentions and discusses this evidence in a note, but
does not acknowledge it in his apparatus. That is not the only case in which P.s
apparatus is less informative than it should be: an editions users are entitled to
expect that the apparatus will supply them with all the relevant evidence, and
should not have to hunt about in notes.
A few lines later, however, Patillon adopts Aujacs dihgsewn in place of the
transmitted dihgsewj. This achieves consistency with the adjacent plural
proems, proofs and epilogues. But anyone who compares, for example, 2.1 (per
prooimwn) with 40.1 (per d
tj dihgsewj), or considers the promiscuous
mix of singular and plural proem(s) and epilogue(s) in 27-28, is likely to conclude
that this intervention is unnecessarily fussy. Similarly, in technographic prose
(especially in technographic prose which we know has been subjected to
abridgement) it seems misguided to assume that every ti-clause needs to be
furnished with an explicit lgein (40.6) or epen (43.3, following Kennedy).
Editorial intervention is, of course, necessary when one is dealing with an
abbreviated technical text preserved in a single manuscript, and the judgements
that need to be made are inevitably delicate and uncertain. So it is not surprising
that Patillons proposals do not all command assent. For example, I find the
deletions at AS 43.2 and 72.2 persuasive, and the lacuna marked at 107.3; in 195.5
Patillon is right to adopt Kaysers excellent metaceirizmenoj; at 225.4
diafqorj is attractive, as is the treatment of 241.1. On the other hand, the
supplement j at 150.4 seems to me unnecessary, and the supplement ath at
208.7 implausible; at 172.2 Wilamowitzs ka ej strikes me as preferable;
Kennedys diagnosis of the problem at 183.3 is more convincing; at 248.6 I would
like to see a convincing parallel for this use of sugkatstasij (for Finckhs sn
katastsei compare Syrianus 2.127.11f. Rabe).
I select here a few illustrative passages for comment. Points in some other
passages will arise in the course of discussion in subsequent sections.
AS 14: ka sumboulesaj, sper par' `OmrJ Nstwr esgei
autn toj per Kaina ka 'Exdion sumboulesanta, ka ti
peiqnioi san at, otwj ka prteron dhlseij ka atj, j
peisqntej m
n katrqwsan, m peisqntej d
plonto.
This passage has been variously tinkered with by editors. Patillons proposal is to
transpose sumboulesaj to follow prteron, which (he says) makes the syntax
of ka prteron more natural. But the corruption is not readily explicable, and
the position of sumboulesaj in the transmitted text is not in itself problematic;
indeed, it seems positively useful to have the focus on symbouleutic speech
established at the start of the sentence. If the syntax is felt to be unnatural, would
it not be more sensible to transpose ka prteron? If we were to read otwj
dhlseij ka atj, j ka prteron peisqntej m
n katrqwsan, then the
similarity between otwj and j would give at least the glimmer of an
explanation for the confusion. But I am not sure that any change is needed: the
prominent position of ka prteron achieves the desired strong emphasis on the
past occasions on which the speakers advice proved beneficial.

MALCOLM HEATH, NOTES ON THE ANONYMUS SEGUERIANUS

AS 20: o mnon d
tn prooimwn es tinej lai, aj o crmeqa
n toj pilgoij, ll ka tn pilgwn, n ok stin n toj
prooimoij crea. poisomen t proomion, e tn kefalawn tn
nagkawn n totoij tj polyeij lhymeqa, n d
t pilgJ
ngkh psa n ti lambnein atn ej prrwsin parathsin.
Patillon prints his own supplement, <kakn gr> poisomen t proomion. He
claims support from the parallel in RG 4.428.27f. (about which I shall have more
to say in 5.4), which offers lkopoisomen gr t proomion. Patillon
describes that variant as difficult, but the corruption from kakn... poisomen to
lkopoisomen... is barely credible. Though the expression is surprising, the
image is appropriate and compelling: you should address your opponents
arguments11 only where you need (and have the opportunity) to counter them; to
give them free publicity in the proem is to turn the proem into (as we might say) a
self-inflicted wound.12
AS 74: ka n toj tropikoj noij kurwj cro, sper
Dhmosqnhj t necatise: di mij gr lxewj lon plrwse
nhma.
This is from the discussion of lexical brevity. Patillon supplements the text as
follows: ka n <m lgon nt nmatoj poij, oon nt to pqanen
xlipe tn bon, ka sa totoij moia. ka n> toj tropikoj. The
supplement, which assumes a saut du mme au mme, is recovered from a parallel
passage in John of Sardis commentary on Aphthonius (22.18-20 Rabe). But the
context in John is constructed out of alternating extracts from AS and Theon,13
and these words are found in Theon (84.10f. Spengel). The most rational
assumption is therefore that John has inserted a note from Theon into a passage
from AS. Patillon counters (82 n.3): mais on la lit aussi chez J. Doxapatrs, qui
ne dpend pas de J. de Sardes. But that is simply false. There is no doubt that
John of Sardis was one of Doxapatres sources in general;14 in this particular
passage he presents a conflation of AS and Theon similar to that in John of
Sardis,15 and one striking agreement proves his direct dependence:
sunupakoetai gr t file (John Doxapatres 2.229.6 = John of Sardis 22.24,
inspired by Theon 84.12) in place of the original lepei gr t file (AS
75.2f.). Patillons supplement is therefore to be rejected decisively.
AS 149: d
p to prgmatoj pstij gnetai kat trpouj trej,
kat t ekj, kat tekmrion, kat pardeigma.
This is from the account of Neocles classification of artificial proofs based on
fact. Although three categories are specified, the following discussion confusingly
11

For this technical use of nagkaon see Heath 2002a, 662-6.

The verb is an echo of Aeschines 3.208; cf. sch. ad loc. (446ab Dilts) and Lexicon Seguerianum
s.v. lkopoisai.
13
John of Sardis 21.5-18 Rabe = AS; 21.18-22.3 = Theon; 22.3-18 = AS; 22.18-20 = Theon;
22.20-23.2 = AS; 23.2-4 = Theon.
14
Rabe 1928, xi-xii.
15
John Doxapatres 2.228.15-19 Walz = John of Sardis 21.16-20 Rabe; 228.19-229.4 = 22.5-19;
229.4-8 = 22.22-23.2.
12

MALCOLM HEATH, NOTES ON THE ANONYMUS SEGUERIANUS

also refers to shmeon. Patillon eliminates the confusion by reading tttaraj, and
inserting <kat shmeon> after ekj. This is an initially attractive solution to a
passage that I have always found difficult. But on reflection, I think the problem is
with Neocles exposition rather than the text. shmeon does not have a sufficiently
stable independent existence in the following discussion to merit this place in the
classification: in AS 152 shmeon is defined as a kind of tekmrion, and as
equivalent in customary usage to ekj. Moreover, now that Patillon has made AC
so much more accessible it is easier to see the structure of Neocles theory of
proof in its entirety. I shall return to this in more detail in 4, where I argue that an
understanding of the structure of Neocles theory helps to solve the puzzle about
how the AC material is to be integrated into the material transmitted in AS. For
present purposes it is enough to note that when Neocles maps his classification of
proofs onto a classification of epicheiremes, he is working with the three-part
classification without any reference to shmeon (AC 81-82).
AS 170: tn d
tpwn nioi mn, j Neoklj fhsi, koinj tina
kat pasn tn stsewn erkasin, o d
dwj ksthj stsewj,
'Aristotlhj d
ka koinoj ka douj toj m
n plestouj eaden,
per d
tn dwn dialgetai sumfwnn ka atj EdmJ t
kadhmak.
This is the transmitted text. Most editors see a distinction between theorists,
reading koinoj tinaj... erkasin... douj (Spengel): among topics, some have
found ones that are common across all the issues, others ones that are special to
individual issues. Yet the opening genitive creates the expectation of a distinction
between kinds of topic, as (for example) at AS 145. Patillon meets that
expectation by preserving koinj tina... erkasin and reading dioi for dwj:
some topics have spoken certain things in common across all the issues, while
others are special to individual issues.16 Elsewhere in the treatise, this kind of
subdivision is usually done with o m
n... o d
, while nioi is used to introduce
the opinions of unnamed persons (AS 3, 132, 158, 242, AC 190). However, AC
186 provides a parallel: tn d
gnwmn niai m
n cwrj podexewj
lgontai... a d
met podexewj. Yet Patillons text burdens Neocles with a
strange way of making his point: can koinj tina... erkasin really be
translated sont des noncs appliqus communment? The passive lgontai in
AC 186 is far more straightforward. Moreover, the more common approach gives
the section a continuity lost if Patillons proposal is adopted: some have found
topics that are common across all the issues, others ones that are special to
individual issues; but Aristotle found (eren Spengel, erhke Volkmann) both
common and special topics. This, however, raises an issue to which I shall return
in 3 below.

16

Dilts and Kennedy adopt Spengels text but translate it as dividing topics: Some topics... invent
something in common to all stases, but others are specific to each stasis. The first part of this
translation leaves the masculine koinoj tinaj unexplained; the second would work better with
Patillons dioi. The English translation in this edition is often unhelpful, and sometimes positively
misleading.

MALCOLM HEATH, NOTES ON THE ANONYMUS SEGUERIANUS

AS 243: d
tn pilgwn frsij paqhtik sti ka tolmhrotra
toj nomasi ka taj deinsesi ka toj scetliasmoj
peripaqestra.
Patillons nmasi is neater than Wilamowitzs scmasi, and gives the passage
more point: it comments on both vocabulary and figuration, rather than making
first a general and then a more specific comment on figures. But the editors who
retain nomasi are, I think, correct. Despite the theoretical distinction between
thought and expression, ancient rhetoricians realised that frsij and nhma are
inseparable (like body and soul: PS 337.25-338.1). The style must fit the content
and vice versa; so one cannot define the style appropriate to the epilogue
independently of the appropriate thoughts to express there. Compare AS 100,
which combines advice on frsij, nomata, paradigms and lxij; and since the
advice on frsij at AS 240 includes spermatikj cous tina tn
pragmtwn, it is clear that frsij cannot be a matter simply of vocabulary and
figuration. (I return to this passage in 5.5.)

3. Identifying the sources

I have suggested (2) that Patillons conjecture in AS 170 breaks the
continuity of the some-others-Aristotle sequence. But Patillon would not see that
as a disadvantage. If the sequence is maintained, then Neocles is the source for the
Aristotle citation as well as for the initial some-others contrast. If the sequence is
broken, it becomes possible to suppose that the reference to Aristotle was inserted
by AS himself. And that is what Patillon suggests (xxvii-xxviii). He speaks of AS
having undertaken une vaste enqute chez les thoriciens anterieurs, and adds:
Aristote en particulier a t lu pour cette occasion (lxxxix). Yet ASs knowledge
of Theodorus and Apollodorus appears to be mediated by Alexander (see, for
example, AS 49-51, where their definitions of narrative are reported, along with
Alexanders criticisms, as a prelude to Alexanders own definition), and I have
little doubt that his knowledge of older tradition was also indirect. At AS 207-8
the cluster of references to Plato, Chrysippus and Aristotle is suggestive of a
doxographic source; Neocles refers to the Stoics at AC 181; and the reference to
Aristotle at AC 191 surely derives from Alexander.
Patillons willingness to credit AS with direct use of Aristotle is characteristic
of his distinctively high estimation of the author, to whom he attributes about 57%
of the text (the passages attributed to AS are listedand miscountedon p.xxx).
On Patillons view, the author moves fluidly between reporting the views of
named authorities and providing his own summary of common doctrine. By
contrast, Dilts and Kennedy see him as a pure compiler, probably not himself a
teacher of rhetoric, who never advances an opinion of his own (xi). I am not
unsympathetic to Patillons position in principle: it is too easy to think of the
composition of technical works as a process of mindless compilation from
sources. Yet AS is overtly compilatory in its approach. And we know that the
absence of a name does not prove the absence of a source: the definition of pqoj
at AS 6 is word-for-word the same as that at AS 223, but only the latter passage
names the source (Neocles).

MALCOLM HEATH, NOTES ON THE ANONYMUS SEGUERIANUS

Assigning material to a source is not always easy. Dilts and Kennedy produce
(with due acknowledgement of its inherent uncertainty) a distribution that is
manifestly flawed (xiii-xiv). The mechanical application of a principle that we is
characteristic of Alexander and you of Neocles splits the systematically
constructed analysis of the telos of the proem in AS 9b-18 between Alexander and
Neocles. Similarly, they attribute AS 215-218 to Alexander, though these sections
unpack the scheme summarised in 214, where Neocles is the named source.17
Even where we have a source clearly identified, it is wise to be cautious.
Compare the list of definitions of epicheireme with the list of definitions of
enthymeme:
AC 78-80 (RG 7.752.5-9 + RG
5.395.13-15)

AS 157-159 (= AC 170-172) + AC 173

(RG 7.762.18-763.10)

picerhm stin,
j m
n `Arpokratwn, qsij
nomatoj ej ti mrouj zthma, prj
tn kaqlou ka genikn zthsin
con tn naforn.

nqmhma d stin,
j m
n Neoklj, lgoj
proeirhmnwn tinn per to
zhtoumnou, ka per to
kaqhgoumnou ato, ka tina
sunchsin cntwn tn kroatn
t ndon kefalaiwdj ka
suneilhmmnwj prostiqej.
j d
nioi, nqmhm sti to
prohgoumnou piceirmatoj
sumprasma prosagmenon t
zhtmati n mi peridJ.
j d
`Arpokratwn, nqmhm sti
lgoj prj pdeixin lambanmenoj
tn pokeimnwn.
tin
j d
otwj: nqmhm stin
sugkataskeuzei t prokemenon
keflaion.
Neoklj d
ka otwj rzetai:
nqmhm sti sunestrammnoj
logismj telj kaq' n xwma,
oc plon moion oc plj
kfermenon.

j d
Neoklj picerhm sti

sullogismj met tj okeaj tn
mern podexewj.
lloi d
otwj: picerhm sti
lgoj xwqen lambanmenoj prj
pdeixin tn pokeimnwn.

Two things in this tabulation awaken suspicion.18 First, the definition of

enthymeme attributed to Harpocration is parallel in form to the definition of
epicheireme attributed to others, and quite different in form from the definition
of epicheireme attributed to Harpocration. Second, the definition of epicheireme
attributed to Harpocration appears again at AC 176 (RG 7.763.16-20); but there it
17

Unless a name has dropped out, the fhs in 219 indicates that we are still dealing with Neocles,
the last named source; the next explicit change of source is at 221, to Alexander.
18
The fact that Neocles makes two appearances in the list of definitions of enthymeme should not
excite suspicion: as Graeven (xii n.1) and Patillon (127 n.2) note, the first formula is concerned
with the content, the second with the form, of the enthymeme. In the introduction to the second
formula the ka (absent from the manuscripts used by Walz, so not known to Graeven) shows that
the duplication is not accidental.

MALCOLM HEATH, NOTES ON THE ANONYMUS SEGUERIANUS

appears in a context that otherwise seems to demand an attribution to Neocles.
One has to wonder whether AS succeeded in keeping his research notes in perfect
order. Confusion is perhaps more likely when he is collating observations from
several sources into a list than when he is reproducing a single sources doctrine in
extenso. Nevertheless, this example suggests that we need to be cautious when
harvesting rhetoricians fragments from AS.
Where there is not a name, we may be tempted to put our trust in the authors
helpful habit of refreshing the introductory identification of a source by name with
the occasional parenthetic he says. To take a particularly striking example, he
does this no less than thirteen times in the nine sections introduced under
Harpocrations name at AS 243. By this criterion, the he at AS 142 should signal
that we are still working with the last named source, Alexander (AS 136). Yet
Graeven (xxxiv-xxv) and Patillon (xxviii-xxix, and 95 n.6) have convincingly
argued that the source has switched unannounced to Harpocration at AS 138. If
follows that fhs in 142 is the orphan of an introductory naming that has
presumably been lost in the abridgement.
That analogy suggests that in AS 89 and 94 fhs either looks all the way back
to AS 62, where Alexander was named, or else is refreshing an introductory
naming lost in the abridgement. Dilts and Kennedy must take the later view, since
they divide the intervening material between Neocles and Alexander. But that is
not plausible: AS 63-98 is a carefully structured exposition of the three virtues of
narrative, and its tight integration suggests a single source.19 Patillon attributes the
whole to AS himself. That requires emendation: fhs is changed to fas. The
change is certainly a small one. But Patillons reference to the transmitted fas at
AS 79 is not to the point: there it is not used to convey a generally accepted
precept, but to re-emphasise the writers agreement (e fasi) with the generally
held opinion that narrative should be clear before he goes on to give advice on
concision that may seem inconsistent with the advice on clarity. Since we know
that source citations can be lost, this emendation seems to me unwise.20 I shall
tentatively suggest in 5.1 that there is evidence in the indirect tradition which
supports an attribution to Alexander son of Numenius, and which is indicative of
Alexanders debt to Dionysius of Halicarnassus.

19

I am thinking of the overall architecture, not necessarily of all the detail. Editorial insertions into
a context largely derived from one source are possible. I do not think we can assume, for example,
that the appearance of the same definition of nrgeia at AS 96 and AS 111 proves that both
passages are from the same source: it may have been inserted into one context from the other by
the compiler. When Neocles definition of emotion is given unattributed at AS 6 it is followed by a
list of emotions different from that given at AS 223, where it is attributed by name; I infer that the
compiler has inserted Neocles definition into a non-Neocles context.
20
At 115.1 Kennedys fas is better motivated: the subject established in 113 is the
Apollodoreans, refreshed in 114 with the plural rwtsi. The corruption to the singular occurred
under the influence of the adjacent tj (which is the subject of paraleyei, not of the parenthetic
verb of saying).

MALCOLM HEATH, NOTES ON THE ANONYMUS SEGUERIANUS

I conclude this section with two prosopographical points.21 Patillon (lviii)
confidently identifies the Harpocration used by AS with the Sudas Aelius
Harpocration (A4013), who wrote (among other works) an Art of Rhetoric and On
Ideas, and with the issue-theorist known from the scholia to Hermogenes On
Issues; he also, more tentatively, identifies him as the author of the second of the
treatises falsely attributed to Aristides (a suggestion already advanced in Patillons
edition of pseudo-Aristides). But we know of at least three different rhetoricians
named Harpocration; since the name was a common one, there may have been
more than three. I have repeatedly had to confront the problem of how to share out
the testimonia among them, and have never found objective grounds on which to
base a solution.22 If Patillon has arguments to support his identification, I would
like to know what they are.
Patillon suggests that the Athenodorus cited by Alexander in AC 84 may be
the sophist Athenodorus of Aenos, attested by Philostratus (VS 2.14). But the
chronology is problematic. Alexander is generally placed around the middle of the
second century (Patillon xliii); but Philostratus Athenodorus (who died young)
taught in Athens at the same time as Pollux, dated to the reign of Commodus by
the Suda (P1951).23 An obvious alternative is the Athenodorus of Rhodes cited by
Quintilian (2.17.15), about whom we know nothing more. A less obvious
possibility might be the Stoic Athenodorus son of Sandon.24 We do not have any
other evidence that he wrote on rhetoric; but since Alexanders citation refers to
the structure of the epicheireme (Athenodorus is reported as holding that it has
seven parts) it is perhaps not necessary to assume a strictly rhetorical context.
Porphyry (In Cat. 4.1, 86.20-24) cites Athenodorus Against Aristotles Categories
alongside Cornutus Art of Rhetoric and his reply to Athenodorus (prj
'Aqhndwron ntigraf). This hypothesis is consistent with the fact that
Alexander is the probable source of the quotation of Cornutus at AS 242: the brief
characterisations of the style appropriate to different parts of a speech in AS 241243 are a single unit, and the use of qrasutra at 241 is parallel to AS 136,
explicitly attributed to Alexander.

4. The original treatise (i): integrating AC

Like Graeven, Patillon does not contaminate the edition of the abridged AS
with material known only from the indirect tradition. Unlike Graeven, he does not
propose a reconstruction even in his introduction. In view of the speculative and
not always convincing nature of Graevens reconstruction, this restraint may be
21

It would perhaps be too egocentric to complain that Patillons discussion of Zeno does not refer
to a recent attempt to collect and analyse the (meagre) fragments: Heath 1994. I have revised the
analysis in Heath 2004, 24-32.
22
See Heath 2003a, 147; Heath 2003b, 132f.; 2004, 76f.where I should have emphasised even
more firmly than I did the purely exempli gratia nature of the speculation which I was (perhaps
unwisely) airing. Graeven (lxix) is agnostic about the identification with Aelius Harpocration,
though he advances a wholly uncompelling argument for identifying ASs Harpocration with the
issue-theorist.
23
Avotins 1975, 321f. argues that Pollux held his chair in Athens from the early 180s.
24
RE Suppl. 5 (1931), 47-55.

10

MALCOLM HEATH, NOTES ON THE ANONYMUS SEGUERIANUS

well-advised. But perhaps there is something more to be said. In this section I
shall concentrate on material from AC that can be assigned to AS with confidence,
reserving for 5 more speculative forays into the remoter reaches of the indirect
tradition.

4.1 Material on the proem

The task of integrating material from AC into the abridged structure of AS
may seem rather straightforward when we look at AC 1-2, from Alexander on the
place of the proem. The obvious approach is to exploit an analogy with the section
on narrative: AS 124-131, on the place of narrative, comes between AS 113-123,
on whether narrative is always needed, and AS 132-135, on whether there can be
more than one narrative, which in turn is followed by AS 136-137, on style. All of
this material comes from Alexander, except 125-128, which is attributed to
Alexander and Neocles; but the inconsistency between 127 (which says that
narrative is sometimes possible after the proofs) and 130 (in which Alexander
denies this) shows that 126-128 must be from Neocles, not Alexander. The
analogy suggests that AC 1-2, on the place of the proem, should come between AS
21-35, on whether a proem is always needed, and AS 37-39, on whether there can
be more than one. AS 36 (which also belongs to Alexander: cf. 196, 240) fits more
closely with what precedes: whether one has proem is conditional on whether the
narrative needs to be prepared (AS 35), but if there is a proem one must be careful
not to drift into narrative or argument (AS 36). AC 1-2 could then be inserted
relatively smoothly between AS 36 and AS 37.

4.2 Material on argumentation

The material on argumentation presents a more obvious difficulty. The series
of definitions of pardeigma in AS 154-156 looks like an indivisible unit. It is
puzzling, therefore, that the definition in AS 156 is the same as that in AC 83a,
where it is integrated into a completely different context, the exposition of
Neocles classification of epicheiremes. It is, however, possible to see what has
happened. The redactor responsible for the abridgement has excised the sections
on epicheiremes and enthymemes almost in their entirety, retaining only this
definition of paradigm and three (out of five) definitions of enthymeme. The
definitions of enthymeme have been left to stand as a self-contained unit; the
salvaged definition of paradigm has been attached to another pair of definitions of
paradigm. The adaptation to the new context is clear: in AC 83 Zenos definition
is introduced as if adding another item to the series ekn, parabol...
(pardeigma d stin, j Znwn fhs...), but in AS 156 it is introduced as if
adding another item to the series Neocles, Alexander... (j d
Znwn...); the
illustration which accompanies it in AC 83 has also been lost in AS 156.
This observation raises two questions. Why did the abridger decide to
eliminate epicheireme and enthymeme? And why did definitions of paradigm
occur at two different points in the original text? I have no answer to the first of
these questions: the deliberate excision of epicheireme from a treatise on
invention seems quite extraordinary. But an analysis (and hypothetical

11

MALCOLM HEATH, NOTES ON THE ANONYMUS SEGUERIANUS

reconstruction) of the section on argumentation may help to answer the second.
The basic structure is as follows:
1. Introduction and definition (AS 143-144)
2. Artistic and inartistic proofs (AS 145-155)
(a) Alexander distinguishes inartistic from artistic proofs (AS 145a); his
classification of inartistic proofs (AS 145b); he divides artistic proofs into
paradigm and enthymeme (AS 146).
(b) Neocles divides artistic proofs into those based on pqoj and those
based on prgmata (AS 147). Definition of proofs based on pqoj (AS
148). Proofs based on based on prgmata are further subdivided (AS
149a) into ekj (AS 149b-150), tekmrion (AS 150-3),25 and
pardeigma (AS 154). Alexanders definition of pardeigma (AS 155) is
added as a supplement to that of Neocles.
3. Epicheireme (AC 78-87)
(a) Definitions of epicheireme (AC 78-80)
(b) Division of epicheiremes into didaskalik and duswphtik, i.e.
moiwmatik, known by some as paradeigmatik (AC 81)
(c) Neocles subdivision of duswphtik into ekn, parabol and
pardeigma: what are (presumably) Neocles accounts of ekn and
parabol (AC 82) are followed by Zenos definition of pardeigma (AC
83a = AS 156), and a comment on the difference between pardeigma
and parabol (AC 83b).
It is now possible to explain why definitions of paradigm occur in two places.
In Neocles theory paradigm is both a subdivision of artistic proofs based on
prgmata and a subdivision of duswphtik epicheiremes. The two
classifications are not entirely uncoordinated: didaskalik epicheiremes effect
proof from (i) common notions or (ii) underlying facts or (iii) the ekta or
tekmria consequent on circumstance (AC 81), while duswphtik epicheiremes
are paradeigmatik. Thus the three categories of artistic proofs based on
prgmata are reproduced in the classification of epicheiremes. (A diagram may
make this clearer: see Figure 1.) I suspect that Neocles, having already defined
pardeigma at the level of artistic proof (AS 154), did not do so again at the level
of epicheireme. Taking the definition of pardeigma as read, he progressed
directly from introducing the new concept of parabol (AC 82) to explaining
how it differs from the already familiar pardeigma (AC 83b). The compiler of
the original AS noted the absence of a definition, and inserted Zenos definition of
pardeigma (AC 83a = AS 156) to fill the gap.26

25

On shmeon see the discussion of AS 149 in 2 above.

AS regularly juxtaposes Neocles and Alexander (AS 116, 125, 146-7, AC 174-5, 177-8, AS 16970, 222-3), so it would be natural for their two definitions to go together.
26

12

MALCOLM HEATH, NOTES ON THE ANONYMUS SEGUERIANUS

Proofs

Inartistic

Artistic
pqoj

prgma

ekj

tekmrion

piceirmata
didaskalik

koina
nnoiai

pokemena
prgmata

pardeigma

piceirmata
duswphtik
(paradeigmatik)

parakolouqonta
t peristsei
ikj tekmrion

ekn

parabol

pardeigma

Figure 1: Neocles classification of proofs and epicheiremes

We may complete the analysis with a much briefer outline, starting with the
remainder of the discussion of epicheireme:
(d) The parts of an epicheireme (AC 84)
(e) Refuting epicheiremes (AC 85-7)
4. Enthymeme (AS 157-9 = AC 170-2, AC 173-198, AC 225-7)
(a) Definitions (AS 157-9 = AC 170-2, AC 173)
(b) Difference between enthymeme and syllogism (AC 174-5)
(c) Difference between enthymeme and epicheireme (AC 176-8)
(d) Neocles on syllogism (AC 179-183)
(e) Enthymeme and gnome (AC 184-7)
(f) Alexander on kinds and use of enthymeme (AC 188-196)
(g) Kinds of enthymeme (AC 197)
(h) Style in enthymeme (AC 198)
(i) Epenthymeme (AC 225-7)
5. Proposition (prqesij) (AS 160-8)
Neocles on the first principle of demonstration (rc podexewj)
6. Topics (AS 169-185)
(a) Alexanders definition (AS 169)
(b) Neocles on common and special topics (AS 170-1)

13

MALCOLM HEATH, NOTES ON THE ANONYMUS SEGUERIANUS

(c) Neocles classification of geniktatoi topics (AS 171-182)
(d) Using the topics (AS 183-5)
7. Refutation of proofs (AS 186-191)
(a) Introduction (AS 186)
(b) Refutation of paradigmatic proofs (AS 187)
(c) Refutation of inartistic proofs (AS 188-91)
8. Tactical disposition of arguments (AS 192-5)
9. Style and delivery (AS 196-7)
Note that the section on the refutation of proofs (7a-c) and the earlier section
on the refutation of epicheiremes (4e in the analysis) are separate parts of the
original; the reorganisation attributable to the abridger is not as far-reaching (or,
therefore, as inscrutable) as Patillon xxiii supposes. Note also that we seem at this
point to be dealing with a classification of proofs much less elaborate than
Neocles scheme. We have, in my view, turned from Neocles to Alexander, whose
classification divided artistic proofs into paradigms and enthymemes (AS 146)
though one might wonder why there is no mention here of the refutation of
enthymematic proofs.

5. The original treatise (ii): the indirect tradition

AC and AS derive independently from the original, unabridged version of the
treatise. AC provides the indisputable minimum evidence that an unabridged
version of AS once existed, and I argued in 4 that it is possible to see how the
material from AC fits into the original structure of the treatise. There remains the
question whether other traces of the unabridged AS are found elsewhere in the
tradition.27 Graeven argued that there are; Patillon argues that the parallels
adduced by Graeven can all be explained as deriving from AS in the form that we
have it. The problem is potentially intractable. On the one hand, agreement
between the direct and indirect traditions does not disprove access to the
unabridged version unless we have independent reason to think the two versions
diverged at that pointwhich will rarely, if ever, be the case. On the other hand,
disagreement between the direct and indirect traditions does not prove access to
the unabridged version unless other explanations, such as subsequent editorial
intervention, can be excludedand that, too, will rarely, if ever, be possible to do
with certainty. However, the more (and the more complex) the editorial
intervention we need to posit, the harder it will become to maintain that there was
no access to the unabridged version; conversely, persistent failure to find
disagreements between the two traditions that cannot plausibly be explained as
editorial will leave us with no reason to infer access to the unabridged version.
Patillons reconstruction of the history of the text tentatively postulates a
third- or fourth-century intermediary between the unabridged AS and the (fifth- or
27

There is no problem in principle with using the indirect tradition as evidence for establishing the
text of where the transmitted abridgement is corrupt. Here I am concerned with the possibility that
the indirect tradition provides evidence for the text of the treatise before it was abridged.

14

MALCOLM HEATH, NOTES ON THE ANONYMUS SEGUERIANUS

sixth-century) commentary on [Hermogenes] On Invention that is the ancestor of
AC (xvii). I am unclear what the nature of the inferred mediating text, described
vaguely as commentaires utilisant lAn. I, would be (at that date, certainly not a
commentary on [Hermogenes] On Invention);28 and it would be circular to assume
that the commentator did not have direct access to the unabridged AS without
independent grounds for suspecting the relatively early loss of the unabridged AS.
That would be a reasonable suspicion if fifth-century sources show no evidence of
access to the unabridged ASbut whether that is the case is precisely the point at
issue here. If there is evidence of access to the unabridged AS in fifth-century
sources, there will be no problem in supposing that fifth- or sixth-century
commentator acquired the AC material directly from the unabridged AS; and if we
are willing to entertain that possibility, there is no reason to be sceptical in
principle about the preservation of traces of the unabridged AS in other fifthcentury sources.
If the terminus post quem for the loss of the unabridged AS must be left open
at this point, so must the terminus ante quem for the abridgement. In Patillons
reconstruction, parallels in Marcellinus commentary on Hermogenes On Issues
show that the abridgement cannot be later than the beginning of the fifth century
(xxiv, xcii). Only one these parallels genuinely belongs to Marcellinus, and I shall
argue in 5.3 that there is no way of telling whether he drew on the abridged or
the unabridged AS. The other parallels which Patillon from RG 4 are not correctly
attributed to Marcellinus; I shall argue in 5.4 that they actually provide evidence
of access to the unabridged ASbut this fact is robbed of chronological
significance by the impossibility of dating the obscurely headed section of scholia
in which these parallels appear.

5.1 The commentary on On Invention

I begin with a passage in the anonymous commentary that Patillon does not
include in his edition. There is a clear parallel to AS 240, on the style appropriate
to a proem, in RG 5.382.8-10:
AS 240
j m
n on suntmwj epen,
frsij stw tn mern to lgou
toiath. to m
n prooimou
perergj te
ka kista shmeidhj,29

RG 5.382.8-12 (with apparatus)

tn d
tn prooimwn rmhenean
de t m
n klog perergn te
enai ka kista shmeidh:
gensqai d
atn toiathn n
kfgV tij toj kfanej trpouj
ka tj glwsshmatikj lxeij...

ka spermatikj cous tina tn

pragmtwn tj dihgsewj.30

28

On the history of commentaries on rhetorical technography see Heath 2004, 69-73.

Patillon retains the transmitted susshmeidhj; but the absence of parallels makes me worry that
this may be too difficult a reading.

29

15

MALCOLM HEATH, NOTES ON THE ANONYMUS SEGUERIANUS

The commentary adds the observation that a style that is suitably perergoj can
be achieved by avoiding toj kfanej trpouj ka tj glwsshmatikj
lxeij. Could that be, as Graeven thought (lxvi), a trace of the unabridged AS?
There is supporting evidence in a set of anonymous prolegomena to On Invention
(RG 7.52-54). The text at RG 7.52.11-13 is shorter than RG 5.382.10-12, but there
is enough to show that it is (so to speak) an abbreviation of the same more
expansive text:
RG 7.52.11-13

RG 5.382.8-12 (with apparatus)

rmhnea d
to prooimou t m
n

klog perergoj stw:

tn d
tn prooimwn rmhenean
de t m
n klog perergn te
enai ka kista shmeidh:
gensqai d
atn toiathn n
kfgV tij toj kfanej trpouj
ka tj glwsshmatikj lxeij...

gensqw d
toiath, qen

kfgV tij toj mfanej trpouj.

Of course, the fact that the prolegomena and the commentary run parallel in
itself does nothing to show that either derives the additional text from the
unabridged AS; the prolegomena could derive from the commentary, or both from
some other common source. But as Graeven pointed out (xiii, noted by Patillon
xix-xx), the immediately preceding part of the prolegomena contains material
from AS that is not in the commentary (RG 7.52.3-8 = AS 36.1-5, and RG 7.52.810 is based on AS 24-5). Moreover, the immediately following part of the
prolegomena (RG 7.52.11-14, more fully at RG 7.715.7-10) comments on the
delivery of the proem:
RG 7.52.11-14

RG 7.715.7-10

to d
prooimou pkrisij metra pkrisin d
prooimou t metran

ka tracoj ka toj pokeimnoij ka tracon ka toj pokeimnoij
okea.
rmzousan prgmasi katstasin
parcesqai t tora.
This can be compared with the advice in AS on the delivery of narrative and
argument (AS 136-7, 196-7). It is therefore a tempting inference that the whole of
this part of the prolegomena (RG 7.52.3-14) derives from AS in its unabridged
form. That would in turn confirm the provenance of the comment on tropes and
glossematic vocabulary in RG 5.382.10-12.31 This conclusion gains added
plausibility from the fact that glwsshmatikj also occurs in AS 85, again paired
with tropes: xnoij ka tropikoj ka mfibloij ka glwsshmatikoj
nmas. The parallel is significant, because glwsshmatikj is not common
word in the rhetorical literature. However, there is one rhetorician who appears to
be addicted to it: I have found 11 occurrences of glwss- or glwtthmatikj in
the critical works Dionysius of Halicarnassus, seven times in association with
30

Patillon places a full stop after pragmtwn, and reads tj d
dihgsewj in place of the
transmitted tj dihgsewj. d
dighsij; I do not think this is necessary
31
But I suspect that the examples which follow (RG 5.382.12-14) are supplied by the
commentator: the Demosthenes example is taken from On Invention itself (4.10), while
stomfzein appears to have entered the tradition of rhetorical commentary under the influence of
Hermogenes Id. 247.13: see Heath 1999, 64-6.

16

MALCOLM HEATH, NOTES ON THE ANONYMUS SEGUERIANUS

tropikj, seven times in association with xnoj.32 It is, perhaps, conceivable that
the anonymous commentator has added material inspired by Dionysius to what he
extracted from AS. But it is more likely that Alexander, ASs source in 240, was
influenced by Dionysius. This is supported by other parallels: compare the
combination perergj te ka kista shmeidhj in AS 240 (above) with
Dionysius Letter to Pompeius 5.3, t m
n shmeidej ka perergon (245.5f.);33
and compare AS 19 tn te rmhnean sugkeimnhn k tropikj mllon ka
shmeidouj lxewj with Isocrates 2, shmeiwdn nomtwn... tropikn frsin
(56.17-19).

5.2 Demosthenes scholia

Patillon does not list the passage from the prolegomena discussed in 5.1
among the testimonia to AS 240. Another passage in the prolegomena (RG
7.54.18-21) is cited as a testimonium for AS 7. But a Demosthenes scholion (sch.
Dem. A3 54.1 (1) Dilts) which preserves a fuller text of the same version of AS 7
(it shares a variation in the order of the points with the prolegomena) is not
identified as a testimonium, though one variant is mentioned in the apparatus. The
procedure does not appear to be entirely systematic. Since the scholion preserves
the illustrative quotations in a less thoroughly mangled form than either RG
7.54.16-21 or AS 7, its evidence should have been presented more fully:
AS 7

RG 7.54.16-21

sch. Dem. 54.1

lambnetai d
t
proomia k tessrwn
totwn:

lloi d
p tessrwn
m
n ka ato fasin:
ll' o tn atn
pnth, ll ka trwn:

p tessrwn d

lambnontai proomia,

k to ato, k to
ntidkou, k tn
32

The references are (with page and line in Usener-Radermacher): Lys. 3 (10.18f., with tropikj
and xnoj); Dem. 4 (135.7, with tropikj); Thuc. 24 (361.5, with tropikj and xnoj.), 35
(383.9f., with xnoj), 50 (409.19, with tropikj), 52 (412.8, with xnoj); Thuc. id. 2 (422.18f.,
with tropikj), 3 (425.9, with xnoj); Comp. 25 (124.14, with tropikj and xnoj), 26 (137.8,
with tropikj and xnoj); Imit. fr. 6.3.2, 209.2f.). None of these refers specifically to the proem. I
note one other occurrence of the pairing glwsshmatik ka tropik: Galen 18a.414.16-415.3,
on Xenophon.
33
This, however, is an extract from On Imitation, and the parallel passage in the epitome (= Imit.
fr. 6.3.2, 209.2f.: see preceding note) reads t m
n glwsshmatikn ka perergon instead of t
m
n shmeidej ka perergon. The relationship between the letter to Pompeius and the epitome
has been disputed. In Heath 1989 I argued that the letter was based on a draft of On Imitation, the
epitome on the published text; Weaire 2002 has shown that I failed to establish that conclusion,
and I am now inclined to accept Weaires conclusion that the differences between the letter and the
epitome are best explained as the work of the epitomator. That is certainly possible for most of the
differences in the passage in question (Pomp. 5.3, 243.4-10 ~ Imit. fr. 6.4.2, 209.2-7). I am not sure
that t brh ka t pqh (209.7) can be the epitomators summary of 243.10-244.1, as Weaire
suggests (358); but I would be prepared to accept a lacuna at 243.10 (ka kat <t brh ka t
pqh ka> toj schmatismoj). I hesitate only over the replacement of shmeidej with a word
so distinctive to Dionysius as glwsshmatikn; but it is possible that an epitomator steeped in
Dionysius vocabulary might do this. Discussion of the relationship between the two texts has
concentrated up to now on material that is additional to or missing from one or other text; a
systematic study of their respective critical vocabularies might be useful.

17

MALCOLM HEATH, NOTES ON THE ANONYMUS SEGUERIANUS

dikazntwn, k tn
pragmtwn.
k to ato, j
Dhmosqnhj n t kat
Knwnoj: brewj.
n d
p
r trou
lgVj, ka toto
pishmanesqai de,
sper pepohke Lusaj
lgwn: pitdeij mo
stin Arcippoj otos,
dikasta.
p to ntidkou, j
n t kat Meidou:
tn m
n slgeian,
ndrej,
k tn kenJ
sunagoreuntwn, j
Dhmosqnhj: e m
n tJ
plestoi sunepoien,
boul.
k d
tn kroatn
tn dikastn, j
'Isokrthj:
edtej mj,
ndrej 'Aqhnaoi.
k d
tn pragmtwn,
j Lukorgoj n t
kat' Atolkou: polln
d
ka meglwn gnwn
eselhluqtwn odpote
per meiznwn kete
diksontej.34

toi gr f' auto j

n t kat
Knwnoj:

p auto, j de
Dhmosqnhj:
brisqej, ndrej
'Aqhnaoi,

p to ntidkou, j
n t kat Meidou:

k to ntidkou, j
n t kat Meidou:
tn m
n slgeian.

p tn kountwn,
j
n t Platak
'Isokrtouj:

p
tn dikastn, j
'Isokrthj n t
Platak: edtej mj,
ndrej dikasta, ka
toj dikoumnoij
bohqen eqismnouj,
p to prgmatoj, j
Lukorgoj n t kat
Atolkou: polln ka
meglwn gnwn
eselhluqtwn odpote
per thlikotou
diksontej kete.

p to prgmatoj, j
Lukorgoj n t kat
Atolkou.

Another Demosthenes scholion (sch. RT Dem. 20.5 (20)) provides an

additional witness to part of the unabridged AS preserved by the anonymous
commentary at AC 197. Patillon does not mention it in the apparatus or among the
testimonia, but it provides a variant reading that merits attention:
AC 197-8 (RG 7.766.4-16, 5.410.5-7)

sch. Dem. 20.5 (20)

scmata d
nqumhmtwn tssara:

tssara to nqummatoj t
scmata:
podeiktikn, legktikn,
sullogistikn, mikton.
podeiktikn sti t x

podeiktikn, legktikn,
sullogistikn, mikton.
podeiktikn m
n on sti t x
34

I have transposed this item to match the order in prolegomena and commentary.

18

MALCOLM HEATH, NOTES ON THE ANONYMUS SEGUERIANUS

koloqwn klwn tn potagn
con, oon: sJ tonun eqh
kretton doken, ponhrn enai,
ka xj.
legktikn d, t x nantwn
klwn sunistmenon, oon:
t laben on t
didmena mologn nnomon enai,
ka xj.
sullogistikn d
t llo x
llwn deiknmenon, oon: gr,
oj n g lhfqehn, ka xj.
miktn d
toi piceirhmatikn,
met tn prqesin eqj ma t
piceirmati kfretai, oon t
toinde: sper n etij kenwn
lw, s tde ok n grayaj, ka
xj.
reta d
nqummatoj
bracthj klwn ka eruqma kat
tn snqesin tn nomtwn.

koloqwn klwn tn pagwgn

con, j Dhmosqnhj de: sJ d

kretton.
legktikn d sti t x nantwn
klwn sunistmenon, j n t
parapresbeaj:35 t laben on t
didmena nnomon enai mologn.
sullogistikn d sti llo x
llwn podeiknon, sper: gr
oj n g lhfqehn.
miktn d:
sper gr e tij kenwn
lw, s tde ok n grayaj. ka
t xj.
ret d
nqummatj sti
bracthj klwn ka eruqma kat
tn snqesin tn nomtwn.

Patillon adopts potagn (PaPc) in preference to pitagn (MS). The latter is

evidently incorrect, but Patillons text needs a lot of help from explanatory
paraphrase in the translation (Dmonstratif celui o un clon se subordonne
lautre comme sa suite logique). The scholions pagwgn is easier to handle: a
demonstrative enthymeme is one which draws its inference from consequential
kla (as in Demosthenes 20.6: in the degree to which it is better to be thought
nave than unscrupulous, to the same degree it is more honourable to repeal this
law than to enact it). This seems to me a preferable reading.
Neither of these scholia can be identified as an integral part of any of the late
antique commentaries identified in my source-critical study of the scholia,36 and
they most probable derive from AC material after its extraction from the
unabridged AS. So they do not provide any chronological fix on the transmission
of the treatise.

5.3 Marcellinus
Excerpts from Marcellinus commentary on Hermogenes On Issues, generally
dated to the first part of the fifth century, are preserved in the composite
commentary printed in volume 4 of Walzs Rhetores Graeci. This compilation is
sometimes known as the Dreimnnerkommentar, because it derives mainly from
Marcellinus, Syrianus and Sopater, though these are by no means its only sources.
Patillon cites a number of passages in Marcellinus which are parallel to AS.
This is the first:

35
36

In fact On the Crown 119.

Heath 2004, 132-213

19

MALCOLM HEATH, NOTES ON THE ANONYMUS SEGUERIANUS

AS 203

RG 4.417.12-15

diairetai d
plogoj ej edh

do, ej te t praktikn ka t
paqhtikn: ka to m
n praktiko
stin nakefalawsij, to d

paqhtiko t t pqh
kataskeuzein ka wnnein tn
lgon.

diairontai d
o plogoi dic: t

m
n gr atn sti praktikn, t
d
paqhtikn: praktikn m
n t n
taj nakefalaisesi,
paqhtikn d
t n taj
leeinologaij:

Both passages divide the epilogue into praktikn and paqhtikn. The shared
doctrine is commonplace, but the shared use of praktikn is not: most
rhetoricians used pragmatikn as the antithesis to paqhtikn.37 Paradoxically,
Patillon eliminates the two occurrences of praktikn in AS 203, substituting
pragmatikn by conjecture. This emendation brings AS 203 into line with the
terminology of AS 113 and 221, but it removes the only significant parallel with
Marcellinus. Patillon may have overlooked this point, since his apparatus does not
record Marcellinus support for the reading praktikn (and his list of testimonia
here gives an incorrect reference).
In fact, if Patillons conjecture is right there is a closer parallel to AS 203 in
RG 7.331.10-16, a passage which probably derives from an early fifth-century
commentary by John of Caesarea:38
AS 203 (after Patillon)

RG 7.331.10-16

diairetai d
plogoj ej edh

do, ej te t pragmatikn
ka t paqhtikn: ka to m
n
pragmatiko stin
nakefalawsij,
to d
paqhtiko t t pqh
kataskeuzein ka wnnein tn
lgon.

diairontai d
o plogoi
dic, ej te t pragmatikn
ka ej t paqhtikn, t m
n on
pragmatikn nakefalawsin cei
ka nmnhsin tn n toj gsin
erhmnwn: t d
paqhtikn lou
qran, lou kboln, t m
n to
fegontoj t d
to kathgrou: cei
d
fqnou kboln.

If that parallel were enough to establish a connection between John and AS, we
should have to conclude that ASs t t pqh kataskeuzein is an epitomators
version of the more elaborate wording preserved at RG 7.331.13-16. So if John
37

[Apsines] 10.2; PS 212.11f. Rabe; sch. Dem. 21.5 (25a), cf. 21.21 (50b); Syrianus 2.89.17-20
Rabe.
38
On the sources of the RG 7 scholia see Heath 2003c, 29-32 (with 71-89), distinguishing John
from what I describe as the patchwork commentary, assembled from snippets out of the RG 4
scholia. In the present case, the section RG 7.329.1-336.27 comes from John, while the following
section, RG 7.336.28-337.29, is from the patchwork: 7.336.28-337.2 ~ 4.415.18-21 (Sopater),
7.337.2-13 ~ 4.417.14-26 (Marcellinus: 7.337.3, 7 secure the reading praktikn in Marcellinus),
7.337.13-29 ~ 415.21-416.1 (Sopater). The Sopater of RG 4 used John, so RG 7 sometimes derives
the same material from John and from the patchwork (Heath 2003c, 32). Moreover, the patchwork
derives from and sometimes preserves a fuller text than the extant version of the
Dreimnnerkommentar (Heath 2003c, 30 n.66). It is good that we have the resources to improve
the text of RG 4; but to secure these resources it is necessary to hunt down scattered snippets in
RG 7a less than enticing a prospect.

20

MALCOLM HEATH, NOTES ON THE ANONYMUS SEGUERIANUS

was using AS, he was using the unabridged version. However, this suggestion is
not one I would wish to pursue. First, one might well feel that the verbal parallels
are too slight, and the shared doctrine too routine, to establish any direct
connection. Secondly, I am doubtful whether Patillons conjecture in AS 203 is
correct: why should standard terminology have been corrupted into non-standard
terminology? If it is assumed that the authors terminology must have been
consistent (a risky assumption), why should AS 113 and 221 be exempt from
suspicion?
In sum: if Patillons conjecture is right, then it is possible (but not certain) that
John provides evidence for the unabridged AS, but there is no reason to think that
Marcellinus was drawing on AS at all. If, on the other hand, Patillons conjecture
is wrong, then the point of contact between Marcellinus and AS is noteworthy, but
too slight to give any indication of whether he knew AS in its original or its
abridged form. So this parallel cannot help in providing a terminus ante quem for
the abridgement.

5.4 ... and others

Can we learn more from the other parallels in Marcellinus? There are no other
parallels in Marcellinus. Walz printed the whole of RG 4.417.1-429.5 as a single
extract under Marcellinus name, with no indication of a change of source. But it
has long been known that this is incorrect: Rabe published a list of corrections to
Walzs headings, from which we learn that a new section begins at RG 4.422.18
under the heading Metrophanes, Athanasius, Porphyry, and Polemo.39 The fact
that this section incorporates material from both [Apsines] and AS simply
compounds the obscurity of the portmanteau heading.
All the other parallels which Patillon attributes to Marcellinus occur in this
section.40 But even if they are not parallels in Marcellinus, they are undoubtedly
parallels. So what can we learn from them? Patillon says (xxiv) that these citations
of AS are rcrites, abrges, entre-coupes dillustrations, and adds: rien,
mon sens, nindique que ce rheteur... ait eu sous les yeux une version de notre
trait plus developpe que celle que nous connaissons. Certainly, if one explains
the differences between the RG 4 parallel and the surviving version of AS in this
way, no indication will be left that the source was anything other than the
surviving version. But is that justified? There is no doubt that there has been much
abbreviation and paraphrase, and it seems likely that some material has been
inserted from other sources. But it is not easy to identify an insertion with
confidence. For example, since Minucianus is not one of ASs regular sources one

39

Rabe 1909, 588.

The parallels are as follows (the examples discussed below are marked with an asterisk): RG
*4.422.27-423.3 ~ AS 188-200; 4.423.3-6 ~ AS 207-8; 4.424.24-27 ~ AS 202; 4.424.27-30 ~ AS
235;4.426.17-19 ~ AS 204; 4.426.31-427.2 ~ AS 212; 4.427.8-10 ~ AS 205; *4.428.4-29 ~ AS 1920; *4.428.29-429.2 ~ AS 237. All the texts are set out in parallel columns in Heath 2002b, 12-20;
there is a brief commentary in Heath 2003a, 165.
40

21

MALCOLM HEATH, NOTES ON THE ANONYMUS SEGUERIANUS

must harbour suspicions about his introduction into the series of definitions of
epilogue at RG 4.422.30-423.3:41
AS 198-200

RG 4.422.27-423.3

plogj stin, j m
n Neoklj,

lgoj p proeirhmnaij podexesin
pilegmenoj, pragmtwn qroismn
ka qn ka paqn pericwn.
j d tinej, mroj lgou staton
pmenon podexesin.

plogoj d sti
lgoj p proeirhmnaij podexesin
pilegmenoj, qroismn pragmtwn
ka qn ka paqn pericwn,

j d
'Alxandroj,
lgoj pirrwnnj t erhmna.

pnodoj erhmnwn,42

lgoj pirrwnnwn t erhmna.

kat d
Minoukiann lgoj
denwsin mewsin cwn tn
pepragmnwn,
lgoj gnsin cwn tn
pepragmnwn, n ka kaloumnh
diatpwsij diaskeu pqoj
kinosa ka prj narg tn
pepragmnwn xtasin tn dikastn
gousa.
cousi d
o plogoi ka
paraklseij ka nakefalaiseij
ka pidihgseij.

And yet there is no reason in principle why a third-century compiler should not
have supplemented his main sources with a reference to one of the leading
theorists of the late second century, just as he made occasional reference to the
slightly earlier Zeno.43 Certainty is elusive.
Moreover, the additional material in the scholia does not always fall into
isolated and easily excised blocks. At RG 4.428.4-29 we have a continuous text
that is parallel to AS 19-20 and 237, but substantially more expansive:
AS 19-20

RG 4.428.4-29

diafrei d
to pilgou t
proomion, ti n m
n t prooimJ
t scma ka tn rmhnean

diforon d
atn

mtrion enai de ka
tiqassn j n epoi tij,

t scma ka rmhnea to lgou.

t m
n gr to prooimou scmata
mtria enai de ka pia ka j n
tij epoi tiqass.
peid gr n rc nfousi mllon
o kroata, ka opw nakeknhtai
atn t pqoj, moiopaqen de

41

Thus Graeven xix.

In the note on pnodoj (RG 4.422.29f.) in Heath 2002b, 14 I should of course have referred to
Plato Phaedrus 267d3-6, and mentioned [Hermogenes] Meth. 427.22-428.6, Syrianus 2.89.17-25
Rabe, as well as Aelius Aristides 4.21 and Longinus Rhetoric 48.86 Patillon.
43
On Zeno and Minucianus see Heath 2004, 24-36.
42

22

MALCOLM HEATH, NOTES ON THE ANONYMUS SEGUERIANUS

n d' pilgoij t scma

sugkekinhmnon
ka pollj m
n mboseij con,
polloj d
scetliasmoj,
tn te rmhnean sugkeimnhn k
tropikj mllon ka shmeidouj
lxewj, dunamnhj mntoi pesen ej
politikoj lgouj.

ti d
ka totJ
diafrei, ti poll tn n toj
prooimoij okt'
n <toj> pilgoij lekton.

o mnon d
tn prooimwn es
tinej lai,
aj o crmeqa n toj pilgoij,
ll ka tn pilgwn, n ok
stin n toj prooimoij
crea.
<...> poisomen t proomion, e tn
kefalawn tn nagkawn n
totoij tj polyeij lhymeqa,
n d
t pilgJ ngkh psa n
ti lambnein atn ej prrwsin
parathsin.

toj koousi ka rma

probibzein t te autn ka t
tn kroatn pqoj. sti44 d

toto n toj te scmasi metroij
ka taj lxesi ka taj
sunqsesin, ti d
ka taj
pokrsesin metraij crmeqa.
d
plogoj tonanton
kekinsqai toj scmasin felei
ka pollj m
n kboseij cein,
polloj d
scetliasmoj.

ka t m
n proomia sustrofn cei

tj lxewj, d
plogoj
lelumnhn tn frsin.
o mn ll ka lik tij sti
diafor. poll gr tn n t
prooimJ lecqntwn ok ngkh
lgein n toj pilgoij,
oon popteeta tij di periergan
di polupragmosnhn
esercmenoj toj gnaj: luqeshj
tj poyaj n t prooimJ ok ti
ngkh n toj pilgoij per
totou lgein.
ka llai tinj esi prooimiaka
lai, atinej tan diaperaiwqsin
n toj prooimoij,
perittn poiosin n toj pilgoij
tn per autn lgon.
es d
ka n toj pilgoij lai
tin
j aj n toj prooimoij o
crmeqa,
oon per tn kefalawn ok cei
kalj t tj polyeij n toj
prooimoij lambnein:
lkopoisomen gr t proomion.
n d
toj pilgoij ngkh laben
ti atn ej prrwsin.

AS 237

RG 4.428.29-429.2

diafrei d
plogoj to
prooimou ka kat tn lxin ka

diafrei on,

44

stai RG 7.347.5. The patchwork commentary (see n.38) at RG 7.347.2-12 reproduces the
section from 428.6 (peid gr n rc) to 428.16 (lelumnhn tn frsin).

23

MALCOLM HEATH, NOTES ON THE ANONYMUS SEGUERIANUS

kat tn dinoian. kat m
n tn
lxin, ti n kenJ m
n metran
enai de ka pan, n totJ d

sugkekinhmnhn ka pollj
mboseij cousan ka
scetliasmoj. kat d
tn
dinoian,
ti ke m
n pqoj mpoisai de,
ntaqa d
propn axsai ka
pirrsai.

ti t m
n pqoj paraskeuzei,

d
plogoj axei,
d
fegwn peirsetai n m
n toj
prooimoij meisai t pqoj ka
tn diaboln (topon gr pnth
nairen x rcj pr tn
podexewn), n d
toj pilgoij
met tn pdeixin nairen ka
diarrdhn kbllein piceirsei.

We face a choice between two hypotheses: either additional material has been
inserted into the RG 4 parallels (as Patillon supposes), or these parallels and the
abridged AS represent independent selections from a common source. It is very
difficult to identify things that could not possibly be due to editorial intervention;
but there is nothing here, so far as I can see, that must be due to editorial
intervention. It is worth noting that the imagery in RG 4.428.7 (nfousi)
corresponds with AS 137 (nhflion) and AS 239 ( kritj mequskmenoj toj
pqesin).45 I have argued in 2 that these scholia provides us with the solution to
a textual problem in AS 20 (RG 4.428.27f. ~ AS 20.6). If the transmitted version
of AS had presented us with a text that was a combination of these two columns,
is there anything that would have aroused our suspicions?46
There is, then, a respectable case for holding that the source for the parallels
in this section of RG 4 was the unabridged AS.

5.5 Nicolaus
Nicolaus Progymnasmata show a number of evidences of using AS. In most
cases, I agree with Patillon (xxiv) that there is no reason to suspect use of a fuller
text than has survived in the direct tradition.47 In one case, however, Graeven may
have a point. He suggests (xx) that Nicolaus comments on the style of the
prologue suggest a fuller text:
AS 243

Nicolaus 46.12-14 Felten

d
tn pilgwn frsij paqhtik

sti ka tolmhrotra toj nomasi

dion d
pilgwn t

45

It does not seem to be a common image: but cf. Longinus F48.155 Patillon-Brisson: toj
koontaj, nfontoj to dikasto katarcj ka mgista, ka safj kosai qlontoj.
Philostratus VS 573, in which Herodes describes Alexander Peloplaton as Scopelian sober, uses
the same language in a different way.
46
To as an aid to readers who wish to try this experiment, I have given some (purely exempli
gratia) reconstructions in the Appendix.
47
Felten xxxii adds another argument to Graevens case, but it is also unconvincing.

24

MALCOLM HEATH, NOTES ON THE ANONYMUS SEGUERIANUS

ka taj deinsesi ka toj
scetliasmoj
peripaqestra.

deinseij paralambnein ka
scetliasmoj
ka paqhtikn lwj rgzesqai tn
frsin ka at d
t pokrsei
kecrsqai peripaqestrv,

Note that what is missing in AS is a comment on delivery. The delivery of

narrative and argument is mentioned in AS (136-7, 196-7); we saw in 5.1 that a
trace of the missing discussion of the delivery of the proem may be preserved in
the anonymous prolegomena (RG 7.52.11-14, RG 7.715.7-10). Note, too, that RG
4.428.11f., part of the series of parallels discussed in 5.4, comments on the
delivery of the proem by contrast with the epilogue. So a cumulative case has
emerged: either comments on delivery have been inserted into material from AS
independently in three different sources, or the abridger had a tendency (not
completely carried through) to eliminate or abbreviate references to delivery in
the original AS. The latter is the more economical hypothesis.

5.6 John of Sardis

There is another commentary on On Invention, of which the first part only
was published by Walz (RG 6.507-541, attributed to George the Divider).48 The
prolegomena were re-edited by Rabe (PS 351-360), who identifies the author of
the commentary as John of Sardis (PS cii), but it has never been published in
full.49 Graeven reports (xvii) that, after the three definitions of epicheireme found
in AC 78-80 (RG 7.752.5-9 + RG 5.395.13-15), discussed above, John adds
pinhma kataskeuzei t prokemenon zthma. As Graeven points out, this
fourth definition of epicheireme corresponds to the fourth definition of
enthymeme, just as the third definition of epicheireme does to the third definition
of enthymeme (see 3 above):
picerhm sti...

nqmhm sti...

lgoj xwqen lambanmenoj prj

pdeixin tn pokeimnwn.

lgoj prj pdeixin lambanmenoj

tn pokeimnwn.

pinhma kataskeuzei t
prokemenon zthma.

sugkataskeuzei t prokemenon
keflaion.

This instance obviously does not raise a question of access to the original AS
independent of the material preserved in AC; rather, if the definition was part of
the original version of the treatise, its absence from AC is probably due an
accident of transmission. Admittedly, the additional definition of epicheireme is
also found in Rufus (27); so one might wonder whether it has been added in John
48

George the Divider is, presumably, the fifth-century commentator on Hermogenes On Issues.
The manuscript superscriptions of this commentary show considerable uncertainty about
authorship: see Rabes apparatus, PS 351.9-14.
49
An edition of the commentary on book 2 is promised in the summary of Rosario Scalias
doctoral thesis, Un commentario inedito al per ersewj pseudo-ermogeniano
(http://www2.reggionet.it/filosofia/allegati/2000/Scalia.pdf). Scalia accepts the attribution to
George, but does not appear to be aware of Rabes discussion (she reports Vat. gr. 901, already
used by Rabe, as a newly discovered witness to the text).

25

MALCOLM HEATH, NOTES ON THE ANONYMUS SEGUERIANUS

rather than lost in AC. But the parallel, if anything, supports its place in AS: Rufus
also includes definitions of narrative, paradigm and enthymeme (17, 31, 35)
which are found in AS (48, 156, 158 = AC 171).50 Patillon does not mention
Graevens observation; but the definition certainly deserves at least to be
mentioned in an apparatus.
Graeven also argued (xvi) that John (PS 358.6-11 = RG 6.511.4-12) made use
of an unabridged version of AS 1.
AS 1

John of Sardis PS 358.6-14

politikj toi dikanikj lgoj

ej tssara mrh diairetai t
prokemena:

ston d, j politikj lgoj

ej tssara mrh diairetai,
proomion, dighsin, psteij,
plogon, per n nn `Ermognhj n
toj tris tmoij didskei:
crzomen gr n t politik lgJ
prooimwn m
n prj t
prosecestrouj poisai toj
kroatj, dihgsewj d
prj t
didxai t prgma, tn d
pstewn
prj t naskeusai ka
kataskeusai t prokemenon, tn
d
pilgwn prj t
pirrsai tn koonta ej tn
p
r mn yfon.

crzomen gr n at
prooimwn m
n prj t
prosecestrouj poisai toj
kroatj, dihgsewj d
prj t
didxai t prgma, tn d
pstewn
prj t kataskeusai
naskeusai t prokemenon: toj
d
pilgouj pgomen prj t
pirrsai tn koonta ej tn
p
r mn yfon.

We noted in 2 that Johns evidence may support the view that toi dikanikj is
an interpolation. But that is disputed; and the interpolation might in any case
postdate the abridgement. So this does not provide evidence that John used
anything other than the transmitted version. Nor does the fact that he lists the four
parts of a speech: that could easily be editorial, as the reference to Hermogenes
clearly must be. Such editorial activity is also clearly in evidence in the parallel
which John provides (PS 358.24-359.11) to AS 4: his text is much longer than the
anonymous prolegomena or AS itself, but the main insertion is found also in RG
7.56.5-13, and has presumably been pasted in by John from another source.51

50

The first two are attributed to Zeno and the last to some. If Rufus uses Zenos definition of
paradigm (genomnou prgmatoj pomnhmneusij ej mowsin to nn zhtoumnou), then
the parallel definition of parabol (ntoj ka ginomnou prgmatoj pomnhmneusij prj
mowsin to zhtoumnou Rufus 32) presumably belongs to Zeno also. It might then seem
tempting to infer that Rufus has made extensive use of Zenos work on epicheiremes (attested in
the Suda). But if Rufus definition of epicheireme (pinhma kataskeuzei t prokemenon
zthma) is Zenos, then we should expect the corresponding definition of enthymeme in AC 173 (
sugkataskeuzei t prokemenon keflaion) to belong to Zeno as well; but Rufus definition
of enthymeme (35) is that of AS 158 = AC 171. So we cannot assume that Rufus consistently
follows Zeno in his section on argument.
51
Patillons apparatus to 4.4f. cites George from RG 6:511.27: consistency of practice would lead
one to expect a reference to John of Sardis, PS 359.5.

26

MALCOLM HEATH, NOTES ON THE ANONYMUS SEGUERIANUS

So far, then, we have found no evidence in John of access to the unabridged
version of AS independent of AC. But I am tantalised by one passage that has no
parallel in AS. At PS 357.21-358.5 John addresses the definition of invention:52
eresij tonun stn pnoia nohmtwn proshkntwn ka rmodwn
t pokeimnJ ka zhtoumnJ prgmati. eresj stin pnoia
tn piqanj prosntwn toj prokeimnoij problmasin nomtwn
te ka nohmtwn: nomata d esin nqumhmatik ka
paradeigmatik. per d
tj lxeij katagnetai eresij prj t
eren pithdeaj lxeij ka pepoihmnaj prj t pokemenon
prswpon.
This passage immediately precedes the parallel to AS 1. But it was not that
juxtaposition which drew it to my attention, so much as a train of thought
prompted one of Patillons conjectures:
AS 154 pardeigma d, j Neoklj, mfer
j ka moion ka ekj
t zhtoumnJ prgmati.
Patillon proposes reading prgm ti. My first thought was that the conjecture,
though neat, produced an implausible word-order. My second thought, more
favourable to the conjecture, was a suspicion that t zhtomenon prgma would
not be a common turn of phrase, since rhetoricians usually find t zhtomenon
sufficient. My impression was correct: t zhtomenon prgma is rare. But one of
the very few examples that I found is in this passage from John of Sardis. Let us
therefore try a thought experiment: if the original version of the treatise contained
material before AS 1, what would it have looked like? The author speaks of own
work as On Invention (AS 246),53 so a definition of invention would not have
been out of place; and it is characteristic of AS to give more than one definition
most probably, those of his favourite sources, Neocles and Alexander. If the names
had been lost in transmission it would be unreasonable to expect the definitions to
be identified by unique features of language or doctrine; but if we were lucky, we
would find matches to what little we know of the two theorists. In this case, we
have found a parallel in the first definition of invention to Neocles use of t
zhtomenon prgma at AS 154; and the second definitions division of thought
into nqumhmatik and paradeigmatik agrees with Alexanders division of
artistic proofs (AS 146). This division is, of course, by no means unique to
Alexander.54 But note, too, that the second definition, unlike the first, explicitly
extends invention to cover style (nmata, lxij) as well as thought (nomata);
this is consistent with Alexanders discussion of the styles appropriate to different
parts of a speech. This passage, therefore, if we restore a naming formula (for
example, j m
n Neoklj... j d
'Alxandroj...), is exactly what we should
52

Partial, and more or less distant, parallels: PS 236.1-8, PS 331.21f., RG 7.698.8-11.

Cf. the cross-reference in AS 179 tn d
mchn n toj per ersewj scolikoj, n oj
per piceirhmtwn lgomen, didxamen. Like Patillon (107 n.9) I take the reference to be to
the discussion of mch at AC 190, 193-5though this is in the section on enthymemes, not
epicheiremes: so the possibility that part of the original section on epicheiremes was omitted from
AC must also be considered.
54
See (e.g.) Aristotle Rhetoric 1.2, 1356a35-b17; 2.20, 1393a23f.
53

27

MALCOLM HEATH, NOTES ON THE ANONYMUS SEGUERIANUS

have expected in a hypothetical lost introductory paragraph to AS. Perhaps that is
what it is.

6. Conclusion
I began describing Patillons edition as the default choice for serious study of
AS. The doubts and disagreements I have expressed are not intended to cast doubt
that judgement. No edition of a technical compilation preserved in abridged form
in a single manuscript can hope to answer all the questions conclusively. The
relevant criterion is the extent to which it enables discussion to move to a new
level. Patillon amply satisfies this criterion. It is precisely because his work puts
me in a stronger position to engage with this text and pose questions about it than
ever before that I have been able to reach conclusions that sometimes go beyond
and sometimes diverge from his. Not for the first time, I have come away from
one of Patillons editions immensely stimulated and with a profound sense of
admiration and gratitude.

Appendix
These hypothetical reconstructions of sections of the original treatise, based
on the abridged AS and the parallels in RG 4, are offered purely exempli gratia, to
illustrate how easily the two sources can be read as independent selections from a
common source (see 5.4 and n.46 above).
*AS 19-20: diafrei d
to pilgou t proomion kat t scma ka tn
rmhnean. t m
n gr to prooimou scmata mtria enai de ka pia
ka j n tij epoi tiqass. peid gr n rc nfousi mllon o
kroata ka opw nakeknhtai atn t pqoj, moiopaqen de toj
koousi ka rma probibzein t te autn ka t tn kroatn
pqoj. stai d
toto n toj te scmasi metroij ka taj lxesi ka
taj sunqsesin, ti d
ka taj pokrsesin metraij crmeqa. d

plogoj tonanton sugkekinsqai toj scmasin felei ka pollj m
n
kboseij cein, polloj d
scetliasmoj, tn te rmhnean sugkeimnhn
k tropikj mllon ka shmeidouj lxewj, dunamnhj mntoi pesen ej
politikoj lgouj. ka t m
n proomia sustrofn cei tj lxewj, d

plogoj lelumnhn tn frsin. o mn ll ka lik tij sti diafor.
poll gr tn n t prooimJ lecqntwn ok ngkh lgein n toj
pilgoij, oon popteeta tij di periergan di polupragmosnhn
esercmenoj toj gnaj: luqeshj tj poyaj n t prooimJ ok ti
ngkh n toj pilgoij per totou lgein. ka llai tinj esi
prooimiaka lai, atinej tan diaperaiwqsin n toj prooimoij,
perittn poiosin n toj pilgoij tn per autn lgon. es d
ka n
toj pilgoij lai tin
j aj n toj prooimoij o crmeqa, oon per tn
kefalawn tn nagkawn ok cei kalj t tj polyeij n toj
prooimoij lambnein: lkopoisomen gr t proomion. n d
t pilgJ
ngkh psa n ti lambnein atn ej prrwsin parathsin.
*AS 198-200: plogj stin, j m
n Neoklj, lgoj p proeirhmnaij
podexesin pilegmenoj, pragmtwn qroismn ka qn ka paqn
28

MALCOLM HEATH, NOTES ON THE ANONYMUS SEGUERIANUS

pericwn. j d tinej, mroj lgou staton pmenon podexesin,
pnodoj erhmnwn. j d
'Alxandroj, lgoj pirrwnnj t erhmna.
kat d
Minoukiann lgoj denwsin mewsin cwn tn pepragmnwn:
lgoj gnsin cwn tn pepragmnwn, n ka kaloumnh diatpwsij
diaskeu pqoj kinosa ka prj narg tn pepragmnwn xtasin tn
dikastn gousa. cousi d
o plogoi ka paraklseij ka
nakefalaiseij ka pidihgseij.
*AS 237-9: diafrei d
plogoj to prooimou ka kat tn lxin ka
kat tn dinoian. kat m
n tn lxin, ti n kenJ m
n metran enai
de ka pan, n totJ d
sugkekinhmnhn ka pollj mboseij cousan
ka scetliasmoj. kat d
tn dinoian, ti t m
n pqoj mpoisai de,
d
plogoj propn axsai ka pirrsai. d
fegwn peirsetai n
m
n toj prooimoij meisai t pqoj ka tn diaboln (topon gr pnth
nairen x rcj pr tn podexewn), n d
toj pilgoij met tn
pdeixin nairen ka diarrdhn kbllein piceirsei. d
rmhnea
ka pnu pwj rmzei, e qrasea eh ka tetolmhmnh, ka te lxij
polln cousa tn tropikn paraskeun, te snqesij kekainwmnh ka
parakinosa tn yucn. ka t scma d
scetliasmoj ctw ka ecj
ka t toiata. gnwston d
ti t pqh ka n toj kefalaoij msoij
paralhfqsetai, mlista p tn sqenn poqsewn. sumperistlletai
gr t sqen
j to prgmatoj t tj paqhtikj daj perbol, ka
kritj mequskmenoj toj pqesin okti t krib
j dior to prgmatoj,
per ka Dhmosqnhj pepohken n t parapresbeaj: ka gr
nekefalaioto n msoij ka tj axhtikj laj kstJ parspeire
tn kefalawn.

Bibliography
Avotins, I. (1975) The holders of the chairs of rhetoric at Athens, HSCP 79, 31324
Boys-Stone, G. (2003) The Stoics two types of allegory, in G. Boys-Stone (ed.),
Metaphor, Allegory, and the Classical Tradition (Oxford), 189-216
Dilts, M.R. (1983-6) Scholia Demosthenica (Leipzig)
(1992) Scholia in Aeschinem (Stuttgart)
Dilts, M.R. and Kennedy, G.A. (1997) Two Greek Rhetorical Treatises from the
Roman Empire: introduction, text, and translation of the Arts of Rhetoric,
attributed to Anonymous Seguerianus and to Apsines of Gadara (Leiden)
Felten, J. (1913) Nicolai progymnasmata (Leipzig)
Graeven, J. (1891) Cornuti artis rhetoricae epitome (Berlin)
Heath, M. (1989) Dionysius of Halicarnassus On Imitation Hermes 117, 370-3
(1994) Zeno the rhetor and the thirteen staseis, Eranos 92, 17-22
(1999) Longinus On Sublimity, PCPS 45, 43-74
(2002a) Notes on pseudo-Apsines, Mnemosyne 55, 657-68
29

MALCOLM HEATH, NOTES ON THE ANONYMUS SEGUERIANUS

(2002b) Porphyrys rhetoric: testimonia and fragments, Leeds International
Classical Studies 1.5, 1-38
(2003a) Porphyrys rhetoric, CQ 53, 141-166
(2003b) Theon and the history of the progymnasmata, GRBS 43, 129-60
(2003c) Metalepsis, paragraphe and the scholia to Hermogenes, Leeds
International Classical Studies 2.2, 1-91
(2004) Menander: a rhetor in context (Oxford)
Kennedy, G. (2003) Some recent controversies in the study of later Greek
rhetoric, AJP 124, 295-300
Patillon, M. (2001) Apsins, Art rhtorique. Problmes faux-semblant (Paris)
(2002) Pseudo-Aelius Aristide, Arts rhtoriques (Paris)
(2005) Anonyme de Sguier. Art du discours politique (Paris)
Patillon, M. and Bolognesi, G. (1997) Aelius Thon (Paris)
Patillon, M. and Brisson, L. (2001) Longin. Fragments. Art Rhtorique. Rufus. Art
Rhtorique (Paris)
Rabe, H. (1908) Aus Rhetoren-Handschriften: 5. Des Diakonen und Logotheten
Johannes Kommentar zu Hermogenes Per meqdou deinthtoj RM 63, 127-51
(1909) Aus Rhetoren Handschriften: 11. Der Dreimnner Kommentar WIV,
RM 64, 578-89
(1928) Ioannis Sardiani Commentarium in Aphthonii Progymnasmata
(Leipzig)
(1931) Prolegomenon Sylloge (Leipzig)
Vottero, D. (2004) Anonimo Segueriano: Arte del discorso politico (Alessandria)
Walz, C. (1832-6) Rhetores Graeci (Stuttgart)
Weaire, G. (2002) The relationship between Dionysius of Halicarnassus De
imitatione and Epistula ad Pompeium, CP 97, 351-359

30